🚀 go-pugleaf

mwitte@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mark Witte) wrote:

>...In attempting to explain growth and
>levels of income in various nations, Fukuyama ignores the basic economic tools
>of examining growth of the capital stock and labor force.  How you can say he
>does anything but ignore the most basic issues in neo-classical economics it
>beyond me.  

Again, Fukuyama was not trying to examine the growth of the labor force, or 
anything of the sort.  If you would read his *book* instead of one bad *book 
review*, you might understand this.  And how *you* could continue to deny that 
the most basic facts about a society (such as its religion or its culture) might 
have even a small effect upon a nation's economic performance is beyond me. 

>>"As Adam Smith well understood, economic life is 
>>deeply embedded in social life, and it cannot be understood apart from 
>>the customs, morals, and habits of the society in which it occurs.  In 
>>short, it cannot be divorced from culture." (*Trust*, Free Press, 1995, 
>>p. 13).
>
>Ah, now there's some penetrating analysis.  It's certainly better than trying
>to estimate some sort of model of economic growth and trying to determine what
>part of the residual (beyond the factors accounted for by growth in capital,
>labor, and other well established factors related to changes in production) is
>accounted for by the factors Fukuyama thinks are important.  

I agree.  It is *very* pentrating.  For how do you quantify "Trust"?  How do you 
quantify "religious belief"?  How do quantify "spontaneous sociability"?  What 
metric do you use to measure such concepts?   You can't, and to try to do so is 
to fail to understand what Fukuyama is trying to say.

>>>Fukuyama's complete reliance upon institutional and
>>>cultural factors and his ignoring of neoclassical causes turns what
>>>might have been an interesting piece of work into a complete waste of
>>>good paper.

>>Before you go off insulting other people's work, you might want to read 
>>what they actually said on the matter.
>
>And before I write a book on issues relating to economic growth, I might 
>want to study the standard methodology in the area.
>

Fukuyama *did* study the standard methodology, and he has the footnotes to prove 
it.  Again, true to form, you have not shown otherwise.  (I pity any 
dissertation committee that has to read the poorly researched polemic that you 
will, no doubt, write)  Far from discounting neoclassical economics, Fukuyama is 
a true believer.  However, Fukuyama argues, quite convincingly, that there are a 
few things which neoclassical economics cannot explain.

For example, the "standard methodology" you make reference to does not explain 
why An Wang gave his incompetent son control of Wang Laboratories.  How could 
this be so?  Because, as Fukuyama conclusively shows in his book, it overlooks 
the retarding impact Confucianism has on industry.

Again, if you *are* going to write your own book, it might be wise to actually 
read what other's have written before you begin insulting them.

  --------------------------------------------------------
  | Chris Swenson                                        |
  | Resident Consultant                                  |
  | The RAND Corporation                                 |
  | 2100 M St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037-1270        |
  | Tel: (202) 296-5000  Fax: (202) 296-7960             |
  | E-Mail: swenson@rand.org   URL: http://www.rand.org/ |
  --------------------------------------------------------
  | RAND is a nonprofit institution chartered to improve |
  | public policy through research and analysis.         |
  --------------------------------------------------------
  | DISCLAIMER: Views or conclusions expressed herein    |
  | are the author's own, and do not necessarily         |
  | represent the opinions of RAND or its sponsors.      |
  --------------------------------------------------------